From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,76ec5d55630beb71 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-02 08:43:07 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!213.200.246.247!not-for-mail From: Vinzent Hoefler Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada 200X Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 17:41:48 +0200 Organization: JeLlyFish software Message-ID: References: <3EDAD07A.3010200@attbi.com> <1054562949.551399@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1054565992.652258@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.200.246.247 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1054568586 9652879 213.200.246.247 (16 [175126]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:38370 Date: 2003-06-02T17:41:48+02:00 List-Id: Bill Findlay wrote: >On 2/6/03 16:04, in article bbfp40$90vu6$1@ID-175126.news.dfncis.de, >"Vinzent Hoefler" wrote: > >> Hyman Rosen wrote: >>=20 >>> I'm given to understand that Ada is meant to be >>> for the convenience of the reader, not the writer. It may be >>> more work for you to look up the ancestor, but then the reader >>> of the code will know exactly where to look for the code. >>=20 >> Yes, it's ok for the first time you have to write it. >> The problem sometimes is that all these view conversions should be >> changed when you make a change to the object hierarchy and insert >> another object,=20 > >Might you not want to invoke the original parent in some cases, and in = other >cases the newly-interposed parent? Maybe, yes. Usually not, because in that case it would simply become a completely new derived object then. >It seems that is an issue calling for at >least a careful review of all the types in that lineage, during which = such >hand-offs should be reconsidered, rather than just taking it for granted >that the default given by 'super' is the right one. Well, you should do such review anyway. IME, having something like "inherited" just would make the changes easier and at least in the cases *I* encountered thus far, less error prone. Not that I really miss that, I could get along without that feature in Turbo Pascal 6, but later when I got TP7 I used it quite often. It turned out to be more easy especially in ever changing code (which, of course, you should never have with a good design in the first place). So sometimes I forgot the change and had an object that didn't properly initialize its new properties because its constructor wasn't called at all, just because the call to the parent's method directly "skipped" to the grandfather. Well, as I said, YMMV. Vinzent. --=20 Parents strongly cautioned -- this posting is intended for mature audiences over 18. It may contain some material that many parents would not find suitable for children and may include intense violence, sexual situations, coarse language and suggestive dialogue.